The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The end of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Jragghen
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I apologize for the lack of a news article concerning this, but truthfully, through Google News, I can only find one news organization reporting on it, so I thought that the IHEU would serve well enough. This is admittedly sensationalistic and inflammatory at times, but the content of the changes made and where the lines were drawn merits discussion.
Source
Now, I know it's against the rules to simply post an article and say "discuss," but there's so many directions that this can be taken in that I know of little else to do - should such a body have requirements for membership before they are permitted to join and vote? What should be the basis for such membership? Is such a body necessary? What actions should states which were overruled in this proceeding do? Why isn't this being reported anywhere other than here, which is just a copy of the above quote?
Source
Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights
Submitted by admin on 30 March, 2008 - 08:32.
For the past eleven years the organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing the 57 Islamic States, has been tightening its grip on the throat of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yesterday, 28 March 2008, they finally killed it.
With the support of their allies including China, Russia and Cuba (none well-known for their defence of human rights) the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression that has turned the entire concept on its head. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the “abuse†of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran.
Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saw the writing on the wall three years ago when he spoke of the old Commission on Human Rights having “become too selective and too political in its workâ€. Piecemeal reform would not be enough. The old system needed to be swept away and replaced by something better. The Human Rights Council was supposed to be that new start, a Council whose members genuinely supported, and were prepared to defend, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Yet since its inception in June 2006, the Human Rights Council has failed to condemn the most egregious examples of human rights abuse in the Sudan, Byelorussia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and elsewhere, whilst repeatedly condemning Israel and Israel alone.
Three years later Annan’s dream lies shattered, and the Human Rights Council stands exposed as incapable of fulfilling its central role: the promotion and protection of human rights. The Council died yesterday in Geneva, and with it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary we were actually celebrating this year.
There has been a seismic shift in the balance of power in the UN system. For over a decade the Islamic States have been flexing their muscles. Yesterday they struck. There can no longer be any pretence that the Human Rights Council can defend human rights. The moral leadership of the UN system has moved from the States who created the UN in the aftermath of the Second World War, committed to the concepts of equality, individual freedom and the rule of law, to the Islamic States, whose allegiance is to a narrow, medieval worldview defined exclusively in terms of man’s duties towards Allah, and to their fellow-travellers, the States who see their future economic and political interests as being best served by their alliances with the Islamic States.
Yesterday’s attack by the Islamists, led by Pakistan, had the subtlety of a thin-bladed knife slipped silently under the ribs of the Human Rights Council. At first reading the amendment to the resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression might seem reasonable. It requires the Special Rapporteur:
“To report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination …â€
For Canada, who had fought long and hard as main sponsor of this resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, this was too much. The internationally agreed limits to Freedom of Expression are detailed in article 19 of the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are already referred to in the preamble to the resolution. If abuse of freedom of expression infringed anyone’s freedom of religion, for example, it would fall within the scope of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion. To add it here was unnecessary duplication, and “Requesting the Special Rapporteur to report on abuses of [this right] would turn the mandate on its head. Instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise … If this amendment is adopted, Canada will withdraw its sponsorship from the main resolution.â€
Canada’s position was echoed by several delegations including India, who objected to the change of focus from protecting to limiting freedom of expression. The European Union, the United Kingdom (speaking for Australia and the United States), India, Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala and Switzerland all withdrew their sponsorship of the main resolution when the amendment was passed. In total, more than 20 of the original 53 co-sponsors of the resolution withdrew their support.
On the vote, the amendment was adopted by 27 votes to 15 against, with three abstentions.
The Sri Lankan delegate explained clearly his reasons for supporting the amendment:
“.. if we regulate certain things ‘minimally’ we may be able to prevent them from being enacted violently on the streets of our towns and cities.â€
In other words: Don’t exercise your right to freedom of expression because your opponents may become violent. For the first time in the 60 year history of UN Human Rights bodies, a fundamental human right has been limited simply because of the possible violent reaction by the enemies of human rights.
The violence we have seen played out in reaction to the Danish cartoons is thus excused by the Council – it was the cartoonists whose freedom of expression needed to be regulated. And Theo van Gogh can be deemed responsible for his own death.
Freedom of expression is that right which – uniquely – enables us to expose, communicate and condemn abuse of all our other rights. Without freedom of expression and freedom of the press we give the green light to tyranny and make it impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, injustice and oppression.
But however important freedom of expression may be for us who live in the West, its overwhelming importance for those who live under the tyranny of Islamic law was highlighted by a courageous group of 21 NGOs from the Islamic States who issued a statement yesterday appealing to delegations to oppose the amendment. See http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/petition-hrc.pdf
Incredibly, following the vote on the amendment, the Council descended even further into chaos. At the very last moment, Cuba introduced an oral amendment – clearly against the rules of procedure. When Canada objected they were overruled by the President. When Slovenia – on behalf of the European Union – tried to intervene on a point of order and ask for a ten-minute adjournment, they were ignored. When they tried to protest in another point of order their right to do so was challenged by Egypt, and the Egyptian objection was upheld.
The main resolution was then put to the vote and was adopted by 32 votes in favour, none against, with 15 abstentions.
The NGO community now needs to think carefully about what purpose can any longer be served by continuing our engagement with the Human Rights Council, and by fighting for values that are no longer accepted within the UN system. I have personally been involved with the Human Rights Commission and Council for the past five years and can see little benefit in continuing. Our well-argued position papers are ignored, our speeches are interrupted with repeated and irrelevant points of order, and we are not even supported in our efforts by the western delegations who, shockingly, did not even vote against today’s travesty, but abstained.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights died yesterday. Who knows when, or if, it can ever be revived.
I used to wonder what States who felt it necessary to kill people because they change their religion thought they were doing in the Human Rights Council. Now I know.
The wafer-thin sham of an international consensus on the promotion and protection of human rights has finally been exposed for what it was – a sham. The fragmentation of human rights now appears inevitable. The proposed Islamic Charter on Human Rights (read “Duties towards Allahâ€) will certainly go ahead, as will the creation of a parallel Islamic Council on Human Rights. But the OIC will nevertheless continue to attend and dominate the UN Human Rights Council, thereby ensuring its continuing emasculation and descent into total irrelevance.
Just five months before he and more than 20 of his colleagues were killed by a terrorist bomb in Baghdad, the then High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, wrote:
“Membership of the Commission on Human Rights must carry responsibilities. I therefore wonder whether the time has not come for the Commission itself to develop a code of guidelines for access to membership of the Commission and a code of conduct for members while they serve on the Commission. After all the Commission on Human Rights has a duty to humanity and the members of the Commission must themselves set the example of adherence to the international human rights norms – in practice as well as in law…â€
States who are genuinely concerned with human rights should immediately withdraw from the Council until such time as all member states as well as those offering themselves for election agree to honour their pledges, and undertake to expel any member state which, having been put on notice regarding its human rights record, fails to put its house in order within a reasonable timescale. Failing this, what better tribute to Sergio de Mello could there be than to create an alternative organisation – Kofi Annan’s organisation of the willing - whose members agree to adopt Sergio de Mello’s guidelines and code of conduct – and are actually held to account.
Roy W Brown
Geneva, 29 March 2008
Now, I know it's against the rules to simply post an article and say "discuss," but there's so many directions that this can be taken in that I know of little else to do - should such a body have requirements for membership before they are permitted to join and vote? What should be the basis for such membership? Is such a body necessary? What actions should states which were overruled in this proceeding do? Why isn't this being reported anywhere other than here, which is just a copy of the above quote?
Jragghen on
0
Posts
Nations manipulating the UN for their own gain, especially to protect their own shitty behavior, is not news. This sort of stuff has been going on for ages in the UN. It’s what people expect to happen. And there’s really no reason not to expect it to happen: the UN is a club for governments, not the governed. It’s there to make life easier for the people in charge. If people living under totalitarian regimes want life to get better, they usually have to deal with it themselves—resolutions by foreign governments don’t often mean much.
Seriously. Their myriad of resolutions against thing Y and event X rarely mean a damn thing.
Like, thousands of years ago. :P
Even in the US and Europe, freedoms are usually won by rebellion against current leaders by people who want to take positions of power.
George Washington et al were fans of freedom because it was what got enough people to shoot enough other people for them to take over.
It's bullshit though. Piddly little Islamic and Communist nations pulling a fast one.
Only we should be allowed to do it. It's not ok if we don't agree with it, what the hell is wrong with you? Do you know how much more we pay?
Shennanagains. You think far to low of the founding fathers. Unless they forged fake letters and personal documents, most really believed in what they were doing.
But yeah, this sucks pretty bad.
but they're listening to every word I say
I pretty much lost faith in them after learning the real reason behind the Boston Tea Party, despite being related to John Adams et al (I have his nose!). :P
And what is the real reason?
but they're listening to every word I say
Supposedly it was about the same situation as with the US and China today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
I dunno, that sounds like a fine reason to me. The whole getting screwed by large foreign compainies and all.
but they're listening to every word I say
I do?
Which is an odd criticism I find, considering that extent to the which the UN has any 'teeth' comes directly from the (un)willingness of its member states to bother to cede a bit of their sovereignty to grant the UN authority. You should be blaming the individual states that undermine the effectiveness of the UN.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Only now we should call it the League of Extraordinary Nations, and each nation can use their unique talents to fight the forces of evil whether they be Mohammadan rabble or Chinese criminal masterminds.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The reason the political arms of the UN seem to be less reflective of Western influence and values today, is because the most powerful Western member state (the US) has more or less abandoned its international obligations and responsibilities, which of course seriously undermines the UN's integrity and its ability to "get things done". Oh and also Western influence and values are a fucking laughingstock, we are seen as hypocrites to the rest of the world thanks to a certain president's unlawful kidnapping and torture of innocent foreigners.
Damn that U.S. for abandoning their international obligations and responsibilities. It isn't enough that they are by far the leader in international aid moneys, materials, and manpower - they need to... well.... invade other nations and take them over? Sorry, I'm at a loss as to what else need be done.
The U.N. has been a laughingstock for a LONG time. One of the reasons we don't cede ANY sort of sovereignty to them is that they are clearly incapable of handling their responsibilities. See - OIL for food scandal, inability to respond in Somalia - Rwanda - Darfur etc. If you need U.S. troops to be a substantial part of any effort... whats the point from a U.S. perspective?
Note - this sort of degradation of the U.N.'s moral authority(one of the few things it had) is just a continuation since SYRIA led the council for awhile. Marinate on that.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html
Like: just below Australia low.
So don't give me that "we're already doing so much for the rest of the world" speech.
It doesn't matter how high the per-capita is for small countries, their total amount they give will still be dwarfed by that of the US.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Development/aid/oldgraphsoda.asp#Aidgraphsfor2005
And as you probably know: the more satisfied people are with their living conditions the less likely they are to blow themselves up in the face of Americans.
Well, he was responding to someone using the amount given as a moral highground "Hey, we're paying our fair share so leave us alone" kind of argument so I'd have thought the relevance of the per-capita aid would be fairly obvious.
Ignoring the per capita levels is like ignoring someones income when their taxes are calculated. Imagine saying that the CEO of a multi-national has given a fair share because he's paid the same amount of tax as a pizza delivery boy.
The UN is really bad at the furthering of security and freedom.
This isn't really a revelation for anyone who's been paying attention to the UN during the past couple decades.
Should have been expected really. Anything more nuanced than "Is impaling babies and puppies on a big stick in order to make a baby/puppy kebab a bad thing?" was going to end in argument.
It also doesn't help that everyone at the UN is pretty much used to holding all the power in their own countries.
Certainly, but that criticism isn't going to change much. The UN is structured around giving every nation on the planet equal say, including giving each nation a turn at, say, heading the Human Rights Commission. When fully half the nations are blatant dictatorships and shamocracies, there's no way to make that work to the benefit of human rights.
In order to make the UN a tool for furthering rights and freedoms, it needs to be fundamentally restructured, and that won't be happening any time soon.
It's a tricky problem. The idea behind the UN was that if shitpot nations were brought into the fold, the democracy would sort of rub off on them. They would be brought to the tables for discussion, we could negotiate with them, and encourage them to increase the freedoms granted their people. It's a nice idea.
Some have proposed a League of Democracies sort of thingy, open only to at least moderately liberal democracies. The problem with this is that it would alienate the shitty nations and probably make them even less likely to cooperate.
As it is, the UN is sort of a Cold War construct. It was very useful in keeping nations from just blowing the fuck out of each other. Not so much in keeping them from being cocks in more subtle ways. The UN should've kicked off when the USSR split apart so something modern could've been reborn from its ashes.
But I think that if positions like the heads of commissions or presence on the security council or whatever had to be earned, maybe things would be different.
Not really. Middle income individuals are just as prone to extremism and fanatical religous devotion as the next guy. Actually, the richer you go the more potential there can be as the shiftlessness of being born into wealth and priveledge is fertile ground for a 'cause' to put your abilities towards.
I wouldn't say 'really' there. Especially for long term aid and the like. They still use canvas tents for christ sake. Still, they could be worse and you have to compare it to the likes of USAID and such. OxFam is where it's at, honestly.
I think the UN, in some form or other close to what it is now, is still a good thing. It's good to have a place where every nation, regardless of how shitty/corrupt/dictatorial/etc. it is, can have a say.
What we really need is another organization to go along with it. A "club" just for the non-shitty countries. Sadly, China and others would probably just buy their way in anyway.
Economic Group containing countries like China. Military Group, with little authority beyond that scope. Europe Only group. Composed of African Countries, most of which I would hazard to call anything but shitty.
None even close to what I or ElJeffe was referring to.
I thought we just used that to organize international sporting competitions?